RE: Unicode Devanagari Font in Mozilla

From: Michael Jansson (
Date: Tue Jul 16 2002 - 11:17:17 EDT

I don't think you will be able to convince anyone that the original version
of Windows 95 that you are using is a stable platform. I wouldn't agree at
least, and I wrote parts of it.

- Michael

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Doug Ewell []
> Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2002 4:32 PM
> To: Michael Jansson; 'Michael (michka) Kaplan'
> Cc: Unicode List
> Subject: Re: Unicode Devanagari Font in Mozilla
> Michael Jansson <mjan at em2 dash solutions dot com> wrote:
> > Giving advice to people that they should go ahead and update their
> > Win9x machines with Uniscribe is plain unethical. It's not tested on
> > Win9x. There are known issues when doing that. Telling people to
> > download and install fonts, that may or may not have been tested on
> > all platforms, is equally unethical. period.
> My Windows 95 machine displays Unicode text *substantially*
> better with
> Uniscribe than it did without. Not only glyph support, but RTL and
> Arabic shaping work well -- something I was once told couldn't be done
> with Win95. In fact, the only significant problem I have had, apart
> from missing glyphs for certain scripts and characters, was with the
> Hawaiian Web-font example that Michael Jansson asked me to try.
> -Doug Ewell
> Fullerton, California

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 16 2002 - 09:26:27 EDT